Mr. Bojangles
from Canada writes:
All I can say is WOW! I always knew that the Conservatives were unable to manage the economy, but this move takes the cake. In a budget that was meant to create jobs and reduce unemployment the conservative were able to destroy 2,000 high paying jobs over night. WOW! I guess this government has a preference for low paying and part time jobs because the trend they have been setting for the past couple of years is away from high paying jobs and toward part-time positions. I always kinda figured that the Conservative party couldn't tolerate the rationality of scientific facts and I guess I have been proven right! Wake up Steve - no one really wants part-time or temporary work - people would much rather have secure full-time jobs! ... 2000 jobs! ... WOW!

Silver Centaur
from Ottawa, Canada writes:
It is probably just an oversight. $140 M is just pocket change. If the governement truly wanted to get rid of Genome Canada, there would have been advance notice and consultation.

Jim Q
from Halifax, Canada writes:
It's a sad day for government when the BEST case scenario is that the Minister in charge just plumb forgot about the largest research initiative in the country.

Then again, the CPC is not particularily well known for its sophisiticated and detailed policy papers and government documents.

I recall that they almost forgot to put out a platform at all last election, and that when they did, it eerily resembled the Harper family photo calendar they insist on sending me every year (joining the PCs all those years back...bad idea.)

So, my guess is that, if this is par for course for the CPC its not that they hate science.

Kublah Khan
from Canada writes:
Harper adds 18 new Senators at an annual salary of $134,000 each, plus benefits and the cost for support staff. There is no doubt that Harper knows that Canada will benefit much more from this group of 18 compared to any benefits from Genome Canada!

Spin Assassin
from Ville du Quebec, Canada writes:
Oh here we go...Cons are this Cons are that... Way to go Globe. I expected this article. It was probably written ahead of time with instead of Genome Canada.We all knew that not every last person would get a huge windfall nor should they. It was meant to avoid a depression by stimulating enough so that it would only be a recession. How exactly do you suppose 'big research' will stimulate the economy? Is that good bang for our buck? Will your single job, create another, and another, another? No I'm with the autoworkers on this one. You are scientists. You are smart. You can find work in the private sector I'm sure. I did. Btw I'm a con atheist who believes deeply in science. I'm keenly aware of when and where the dinosaurs were, but honestly, I'm more interested in sand. Stick that in your insults and stereotypes.Besides, an atheists vote is worth the same as a believers. If you want to cross all those people off and insult them that's fine by me.

Art Luscombe
from Canada writes:
As I see it, a non-profit non-governmental funding organization has been the gratuitous recipient of the government's largesse at the taxpayers' expense in the past and now feels it has a constitutional, democratic and God-given right to have its hand in the taxpayers' pockets evermore. Give me a break!

Some Thoughts
from Canada writes:
This government supports genomic research, so I am not reading anything into this. That being said, I think it would be useful to consider mechanisms that would help translate genomic advances into new technologies...I don't have a simple solution, we need to fund basic work, but also create a way to convert discoveries into small and especially sustainable mid-sized commercial ventures...this is where Canada is falling short.

The Artful Dodger
from Canada writes:
Okay, I know what this man is against (the Arts, Science, Innovation, progressive thought of any kind), but it would be nice if one of you reform cheerleaders would tell me what he is actually for.

Seriously, just one positve thing that Mr Harper whole-heartedly supports is really in order here. I'm not kidding.....anything will do!

John Fedup
from Canada writes:
Some Thoughts from Canada writes: This government supports genomic research, so I am not reading anything into this. That being said, I think it would be useful to consider mechanisms that would help translate genomic advances into new technologies...I don't have a simple solution, we need to fund basic work, but also create a way to convert discoveries into small and especially sustainable mid-sized commercial ventures...this is where Canada is falling short. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have hit the nail on the head. Despite millions of dollars being spent on Genome Canada and other health science groups, the results of this research has produced almost nothing in return for Canada. This is true for other Canadian science advances. Perhaps this Genome money should be used for research on how to utilize scientific advances for commerical gain.

Beer Coffee
from Switzerland writes:
The article only discussed the aspects about funding not being continued for this research. No doubt these scientists are doing important work.

But what I dont understand is if there should be any consideration of the commercial aspects of funding all the research. To the extent that important discoveries are made, how do the costs of the research get recovered? Who benefits comercially from the research - is it drug companies who will eventually use this research to formulate new medicine? How does this work?

Is there any tangible cash pay back to the taxpayers by any commercial enterprise if they use the results of such research?

The Artful Dodger
from Canada writes:
John Fedup from Canada writes: 'Despite millions of dollars being spent on Genome Canada and other health science groups, the results of this research has produced almost nothing in return for Canada.'

Norm Jom
from Petawawa, Canada writes:
I noticed there was nothing earmarked for DREA (Defense Research Establishment Atlantic) or any of the DRDC establishments either. A lot of advanced scientific projects for both defence and civilian applications come out of these labs including projects for monitoring the far north. Don't know if it just wasn't mentioned in the media releases or if the government no longer believes these project worth investing in. Over the years the Canadian government had drastically cut back on these intitutions and many of our best minds in the scientific and engineering areas have left for greener pastures south of the border. Sadly these people would rather be working for the betterment of Canada but face constant cuts by our politicians.

Those that can see the reality of it, can see another record minority in the making. Obvious by Iggy disappearing to write his family book during the worst economic crisis in Canada's modern history. His self professed American heart is not with Canada's future or problems. Solving the economic crisis cannot be done with University theory. Best to go back to his passion of writing and lecturing.

Purely academic is the new leader, not of practical substance or value. Moot.

Iggy is aware of it. Just his supporters aren't.

G&M desperate for a non story this morning. The government has alway stated there won't be less money for research, just not an increase.

Rusty Waters
from Canada writes:
A budget to build hockey rinks that aging communities can't afford to maintain but nothing for science. The conservative believe in intelligent design as the explanation for the origin of the universe. They are anti science anti University Education, they want to keep us all stun so they we are more easier to control

Alan Burke
from Ottawa, Canada writes:
Here's a suggestion for our tough time - let's see a formal coalition between the Conservatives and Liberals, with Marc Garneau in a senior science-related ministerial position.

Joanne G
from montreal, Canada writes:
Even the Conservatives could not have delibaterately decided to leave sciece and technology out of the budget. The other parties were asleep at the switch.An oversight I can forgive, but to leave science and technology out of Canada's today's world will destroy tomorrow for all of us. Hockey rinks instead of scientific research? Come on!!

Vic Hotte
from Kettleby, Canada writes:
Ontario (particularly the GTA) has several brand new enormous hospitals with ornate atriums ... but they are almost empty because they have no staff and no new diagnostic equipment. Builders get government money to build roads, bridges and gov't buildings. That's it. Developers sure get a great return on their political campaign donations, don't they. Now, we'll have empty research buildings to match the hospitals ... maybe those buildings need to be knocked down and replaced ... maybe a nice highway to go in front of the new building? Have these scientists every considered brick-laying? That's all politicians are interested in ... aside from political donations and brass plaques bearing their names and the date of the opening ceremony.

Jeff Smith
from St. Catharines, Canada writes:
and the War on Science begins.

'Stockwell, meet the Stockwell,He's a modern stone-age minister.From the town of Red Deer,He's a page from the bible.Lets walk, with a bible and bare feet, Lots of rubes we will meet.When you're with the Stockwell,The lake of fire you will see.You'll have a gay old time!'

Paul Byer
from Canada writes:
David Lee from Toronto, Canada writes: In a recent study, University of Toronto ranked 1st in the world amongst the public universities and 2nd right behind Harvard University in the field of biology. I guess that was too much for the federal Conservatives to take. We just love to loathe at being the leaders, don't we? Like the grandstanding officials going after RIM. I can now look forward to taking my PhD project down south, and I won't miss it a bit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presented as a true liberal. Stomp and carry on and threaten to take his ball and go home. A real scientist doesn't rant and rave politically so I doubt we will miss him. Enoy the U.S. A scientist relies on known facts, not inuendo and rumours in a press article written to upset the sheep. A real scientist would wait for the facts and then apply them to a logical scientific conclusion. A real scientist would wait to collect the facts after having read .................. 'Gary Toft, communications director for the Minister of Science and Technology, part of Industry Canada, insisted 'researchers will not get less money.' Canada needs real scientists and not political hacks. If in fact, you are what you appear to proclaim, close the lab door on your way out. There seems to be contamination affecting logical thinking.

Darcy O'Neil
from London, Canada writes:
Just as Canada started to turn the tide on the 'brain drain' the Cons, for ideological reasons probably, have just killed a huge number of very productive labs.

I work down the hall from a lab that has made great progress in genetics, hell all of Robarts Research Institute in London does genetics, and I suspect this funding snub will for a lot of people to loose their jobs or many of the top researchers to head to the - soon to be well funded - US. Absolutely pathetic.

Nerdy Girl
from Ottawa, Canada writes:
Holy jumpin lizards. It's true then....Harper the religious zealot. And this is what happens to a country like Canada when reasonable people don't vote and the (wh)righteous right-wing religious fanatics do. Scary stuff.

Voiceoftheelder lee
from Canada writes:
And who is the Minister of Science and Technology? None other than Gary Goodyear, a real smarmy character from Cambridge ON. He's one of Harper's lesser known Yes Men who was rewarded for his staunch party loyalty when the Cabinet was expanded. As a Doctor of fringe science, chiropractor Gary is also an acknowledged born again with deep anti abortion and anti stem cell research beliefs. This is a dangerous ideologue. He presents well and knows how to smile and spin with the best of them. I have no doubt that this oversight has been planned and the spin will start today. As Dr. Gary enters the public spotlight, check out his sweaty brow and darting eyes. The signs of either, will indicate that he is lying and spinning.

weird world
from Canada writes:
here we go again...back to the dark ages..just like predicted the Neo-Cons would do ...the Ronald Reagan syndrome...tear down the Jimmy Carter solar panels off the White House....Relegion 1--Science 00

Major Pain
from Canada writes:
Genome Canada arranges matching funds for its projects? Sounds like a good deal to me. A hundred milion committed by the feds would automatically equal 200 million in economic activity. Isn't that the kind of thing that would be good in a recession? There's Obama, telling his people how innovation will pull them out of this recession, and we get Harper, in essence telling us to shove our innovation because we've got the tar sands.

K J
from Toronto, Canada writes:
This article is all about Genome Canada money. Which begs the question are they the only granting agency to get screwed or is all of science and biotechnology going to get screwed. There is a big difference. Genome Canada has already made waves over how they fund research (see the letter in Science from a couple of years ago); they tend to be extremely biased. But if Harper has decided that advancing medical research is less important than bailing out a fiscally irresponsible auto industry, that is another matter altogether. Already, there is a remarkable decrease in research & development in the last few months, small biotech companies and big pharmaceutical companies are laying off staff. We've had a huge advantage over the US in the past few years and have been able to poach back some great scientists in the stem cell research world. We should not be stepping backwards at the same time that the US is stepping forward.

With Cons in charge, Canada is doomed for the most part of the 21st century. Progress & sustainability are replaced by regression & ideology.

----------------------------------------

Well then, perhaps you and others of like mind should write Igantieff and demand that he either see the approriate funding is added to the budget (if not as the article states it was just an oversight not mentioning Genome Canada in the budget) OR he withdraws the LPC's support on the budget...

...but no - you Liberal hacks will spend the next gawd so long blaming the government for anything and everything associated with the budget while at the same time either turning a blind eye to the fact if the budget passes it'll be because of your messiah Iggy or at the same time praising him for his leadership on getting the budget passed.

The Artful Dodger
from Canada writes:
bob london from Canada writes: Good, what has been their return on investment?

'Canada supported a contribution to the Human Genome Project, the recent discovery of the ways DNA can differ between people and contribute to disease and efforts to find the genetic underpinnings of autism. '

THAT is the return on investment

'a few key international projects - including some that were to be Canadian-led. Among them, he said, is the worldwide effort to sequence the genomes of 50 different types of cancer.'

THAT is the return on investment

Come on Bob, give your head a shake. I have never been a believer in the Conservative ' hidden agenda-science for profit only' theories, but this is ridiculous. NO ONE could be THAT short sighted.

Seriously, given the extent of Canada's commitment to these enormously important international endevours, this has got to be an oversight. No one would willingly send these scientists and the research they do the States. I'm going to go along with 'No Coalition from Canada' on this one. There has got to be an error here

david tarbuck
from Ukraine writes:
Cutting out research that is not beholden to private sources entirely; that i typical of ignorant right wingers! This alone ought to be grounds for no confidence. Or have the liberals enough guts to move an amendment to restore this vital funding?

Catherine Wilkie
from Canada writes:
Voiceoftheelder lee: 'He's one of Harper's lesser known Yes Men who was rewarded for his staunch party loyalty when the Cabinet was expanded. As a Doctor of fringe science, chiropractor Gary is also an acknowledged born again with deep anti abortion and anti stem cell research beliefs.'

I'm relieved you named 'Gary Goodyear.' Your description pretty much describes the whole homogenious group of the Conservatives.

Orest Zarowsky
from Toronto, Canada writes:
@ Scott Oxner: Shill and troll - very definitely 'not to bright' - that you are. The genome project has nothing to do with GW / ACC. But keep on spewing that CPC BS. Looks real good on ya, boyo.

Mind you, you have managed to conflate and combine the biggest bette noirs the RRW has major problems dealing with. Bully for you. You're so wrong it isn't even funny.

But you and your ilk still have to deal with reality. No matter what 'bias' it may have. And reality will kick your butt up between your ears - every time. Poor boo-boo-lah.

Seymour Hersh
from thornhill, Canada writes:
Scientific research and development is on of the fundamental pillars to our long term success as a Nation. To not have funded is to put a nail in our national competitiveness coffin.What were the Conservatives thinking?

Oh, right.. If you don't have a vision, then anywhere is fine.

This is grounds for non confidence.

Lets send as many emails as we can to them and Lobby this.the whole country should be up in arms over this.

M McElroy
from Truro, Canada writes:
'Pulling the rug out from under Canadian research and development before it has a chance to bear fruit, from the Avro Arrow to Genome Canada...A part of our heritage!'

Paul Byer
from Canada writes:
Darcy O'Neil from London, Canada writes: I work down the hall from a lab that has made great progress in genetics, hell all of Robarts Research Institute in London does genetics, and I suspect this funding snub will for a lot of people to loose their jobs or many of the top researchers to head to the - soon to be well funded - US. Absolutely pathetic.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

What funding snub? Read the article and what the other side, the ones providing the funding said. If you look closely and diligently, you will find it, albeit, it was purposely a one liner.

The G&M is only playing with you giving you something to complain about the day after Iggy let you down so badly. And the left are all falling for it. Very sheepish, I would say.

Gardiner Westbound
from Canada writes:
.The sun will still come up in the morning. They have been in the trough for nine years and a billion dollars. Did they think the wheels would never come off the taxpayer gravy train?

Casual Observer
from Canada writes:
Don't take much for the liberano whine dogs to jump out of their holes. The liberal rag wont print this so I will. Liberal mcguinnty is in love with new liberal Harpster

Hailing Stephen Harper as the 'Prime Minister who actually delivered' for Ontario, Premier Dalton McGuinty said the federal budget is just the tonic for the province's ailing economy.

'I want to commend Prime Minister Harper and his government for listening to some of the very specific concerns that Ontarians have expressed for an extended period of time,' McGuinty said.

Voiceoftheelder lee
from Canada writes:
You can add to Gary Goodyear's resume that he is proud of his role as advisor to businesses for investment in Science and Technology. Gotta make you wonder. Was there not enough profit to be made from genome projects or was he unable to reward friends with some insider profits. I don't trust this shill. Hope Iggy places him on a very close inspection list.

And Byers, tell me all you know about Goodyear. What I am talking about is personal contact. You should be proud of your politically imprisonned leader who was placed on probation for his gross behaviour. Don't hear you loud mouthing about that too much today.

Donald Wilson
from Canada writes:
It appears that Iggy's 'people ' didn't look closely enough at the details in the budget . The Devil is always in the details . Officials from Industry Canada did meet with this R & D finance group and did receive a request for 350 million over 5 years . This would stabilise funding and allow for multi-year projects . Without stable funding scientists on these will move to the USA . It appears that any industry that takes brains to understand is lost on the Harper crew . Harper himself holds out himself to be an economist yet doesn't understand todays economics ?? And who thinks that a 750.00 grant to buy a new home is going to stimulate anything ? This is almost 1% of the average homes cost . WhoHeee . The Home repair tax credit program doesn't help the lowest income groups among us to repair anything . Many don't earn enough to pay significent income tax in the first place . A tax credit doesn't do a thing to provide cash flow during the project . And these programs don't allow the homeowner to do his own installation labor . This is a program for the well to do . Encouraging the lending to unqualified mortgages is what got the world into this mess in the first place . Is Harper and Flaherty blind or just ????? . Lending to unqualified business , guaranteed by the taxpayer is also folly . Saving the Banks and Bay street from their folly on the taxpayer's dime is the craziest thing I've heard of from this Harper lot . The Liberals have made a very Political decision to allow this very poor budget to survive and have left a dangerous lot in a place to wreck more damage to our people . There must be something in the water or air in Ottawa that gels the brains of people that should know better than to allow this to go on .

James Fitzgibbon
from Toronto, Canada writes:
Mr. Diefenbaker! You've returned! Honestly, what is it about Conservative-types like Harper that loathe this country so much that they do their utmost to destroy it from within?

bob crier
from Toronto, Canada writes:
Canada's shortsightedness in the areas of R&D has cost us dearly before. I voted CPC in the last election. This was the last straw, I withdraw my support. Lets go to elections and kick out CPC. I am done with these guys.

Naomi Y
from Canada writes:
John Fedup from Canada writes:You have hit the nail on the head. Despite millions of dollars being spent on Genome Canada and other health science groups, the results of this research has produced almost nothing in return for Canada. This is true for other Canadian science advances. Perhaps this Genome money should be used for research on how to utilize scientific advances for commerical gain.-----------------------------First, health science have a much longer development cycle than most other area. Even in the rest of the world, there's not that much companies moved into areas of genetics.

Second, just for the University of Waterloo. It created companies like RIM, openText, Maple and a lot more. There are a lot of commercialization going on, just because you don't know it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Brett Williams
from Canada writes:
It bugs me to no end how much the conservatives hate any kind of science or advancement, and always want to push 'tradition' and 'traditional values'.

This is a perfect example of why I can't vote conservative. There are so many people that would vote conservative if only they could get rid of a few specifics parts of their platform and ideology. They could win majorities. But they don't seem to realize they have to get rid of some these ideas. The hate on science is a big one. Social conservatism is the another biggest one.

Vern McPherson
from Canada writes:
Peter Wojnar from Hamilton, Canada writes: >>Budget erases funding for key science agencyA $64 billion deficit over 2 years and Libranos still complain.Unbelieveable!Just a few weeks ago Libranos were complaining about deficits. Now they've helped create a huge one and they still want more spending.Sorry Libranos, but the deficit spending in this plan came from your leader's ideas. Posted 29/01/09 at 7:46 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

===============================

The only research this dufus understands is looking for a box of Kraft dindins in the cupboard.

Mickey Hickey
from Toronto, Canada writes:
Catering to the base again. Harper/Flaherty are a couple of short sighted cynical politicians who would sell their own mothers for a few thousand votes. Not to worry, six months of 70,000 job losses per month will take care of all of them.

mike sty the Coalition Centrist
from Canada writes:
Teaching Canada's New Minority about science based facts and Canadas place in the international community is like putting a dictionary in front of a donkey.

Arvid Hambler
from Scarborough, Canada writes:
This alone is reason to dump ignatieff, who obviously approved of it.The voters will just have to create a coalition of their own: vote for the NDP and the Bloc and leave the two nasty parties of capitulation to US interests out in the cold.

Paul Byer
from Canada writes:
Voiceoftheelder lee from Canada writes: You should be proud of your politically imprisonned leader who was placed on probation for his gross behaviour. Don't hear you loud mouthing about that too much today ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Iggy a probation officer! That's a laugh though he might be able to handle that, no, again it takes practical experience. .........Iggy = MOOT ...valueless, not of practical use. Purely Academic........... Iggy voting for Harper for the 44th time. Who would have thunk? Not the Liberal or NDP coalition dreamers for sure................................................................................... That was written in stone as soon as he grabbed power from the disgraced coalition dreamer Dion and disappeared to write his family history during the worst economic crisis in Canada's modern history. Hard to make a priority between his love of writing and the hassles of opposition leader. The coalition was defunct at the point that Harper pro rogued the 'rogues'. What a brilliant strategist! Quite a Chess Master. .................Iggy will go back to writing until Harper needs his support for the 45th time. Nothing has changed, just the leader's name. Like his country cousin Dion, Iggy will support Harper's elected government and make it a back to back record minority. Oh, he will stomp and bray but will still support Harper. On probation! ......Iggy Probation officer?........Hilarious!.......It really is the best for Canada, an unofficial coalition with Iggy supporting our elected government for the 45th, 46th and 80th time. The second most popular party supporting the most popular party and elected government. Works for Canada. ..................................And methinks that Layton got the GREEN SHAFT.....Better him than Canada. ..........................A steady hand on Canada's tiller and no Liberal or Separatist or the other party's hands in her till...................A good thing.

Durward Saar
from Canada writes:
Vern McPherson from Canada writes:bob london from Canada writes: Good, what has been their return on investment?Posted 29/01/09 at 6:22 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

The Real PS
from Canada writes:
It must be very difficult to be a libbie / NDP supporter this morning. All those dreams, all those hopes, gone.....- Obama will be meeting Iggy- Iggy will be moving into 24 Sussex- Harper will be replaced- The coalition this- The coalition that.Boy it truly is a fine day (but to be clear, not a surprise).Now here's a prediction you can put $5 on, Angry Jack will be gone in 12 months. Punishment for a dumb move and a 5 point drop in the polls.

Nick Ravage
from Tranna-Etobicokie, Canada writes:
Research programs funded by Genome Canada have contributed to the discovery, in Canada, of four genes implicated in type 2 diabetes. Also Colon cancer, oh and early childhood onset obesity and morbid obesity in adults. Cancer, Alzheimers, stroke and heart disease all have a genetic component, and the studies to understand the genetic basis for these diseases are ongoing. These are diseases which cost Canada Billions to treat, and it will only get worse as the population ages. The type of genetic research funded by Genome Canada, gives Canadian scientists the ability to do experiments which get to an understand the root causes of the diseases, to screen people (to identify people at risk for disease) and ultimately to develop treatments. Genetics is important for all areas of biological research. This includes research in agriculture, silviculture and pisciculture - all areas that are of huge economic importance to Canada. Make no mistake about it: Canada has many leading scientists in this area, and it is largely because of the government's decision 9 years ago to set up Genome Canada's to provide funding to attract and develop the scientists that are leaders at this work. Now the labs are set up and the researchers are hitting their stride and cranking out results. The decision to cut this is just stupid. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid. Oh and extremely short sited. p.s. Hi Oz!

bill johnson
from Quebec, Canada writes:
This budget makes no sense. They increase CFI to fund university infrastructure and provide 2 billion for university repairs, maintenance and growth, and they increase scholarships for students: all factors that INCREASE R&D. Then they cut the research council, and they cut Genome Canada. So the question becomes: who will utilize the revamped labs and supervise the students if professors' research operating grants are cut? Schizophrenic approach to funding higher education in my opinion, and the opposition should hold the government to account for it. Does Science funding matter less than funding slaughterhouses?

Don Colby
from Toronto, Canada writes:
I have emailed both Mr. Harper and my MP stating that they had better remedy this matter or lose a large number of votes. I have also let Mr. Ignatieff know that not bringing this matter up (and several other things) in his amendment was a big mistake in gaining support for his party.

Ryan Ginger
from Canada writes:
The real issue here is not the Government's supposed 'war on science' -- perhaps, but I'm not convinced.

No, the real issue here is the simple lack of vision, preparedness and forethought that the Harper Government has. They stumble from one crisis to the next, with no road map for Canada. This is truly sad.

Vern McPherson
from Canada writes:
I'm gonna say this is a mistake or an oversight and wait for the outcome or the explaination. I'm gonna say someone somewhere will get their head around this itemand make the necessary changes so basic research can continue.

I cannot believe the COns can be this demonstrably, backwardly stupid. ........

Gilles Chaput
from Mississauga, Canada writes:
There are thousands of not-for-profit organizations that receive Federal funding. Does the budget need to mention each and every one of them? Has the whole country become beggars, demanding the government put more more more in their hands because of this recession? Who will pay for these deficits? Why are we mortgaging our children's future? Sure there is a downturn in the economy, but we are still living beyond our means, way above most of the world - is it not time for all Canadians to adjust their own way of living, cut expenses, live more modestly, for the sake of preserving some of this for our future generations?

Jason Roy
from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes:
t scot from Canada writes: Jason Roy...you are asking me to explain my support for the sciences. If that's the case then I fear you are too fcking stupid to understand if I did.

----------------------------------------

No I didn't - you asserted 2 posters were of sub-intelligence - so proivde facts FOR ONCE...

...instead all you do every time you post here is a one to two line blurb assuming this or that without any supporting evidence...as evidenced by the fact that you get proven wrong time and time again...only to come back and post the same crap again...

Now get lost troll and go play with your buddy Stupid Sty...afterall, you regard him as 'a breath of fresh air on these threads'.

t scot
from Canada writes:
Peter Wojnar....cut anything or everything in order to fund the sciences. But really Peter, we're talking about 140 million here out of 34 billion. You have to face the facts Peter. Cons are known world wide for their anti-science positions. If you are aware of that and spew this crap anyway then you are merely a shill. like Roy and Byers.

kitty kumari
from Canada writes:
So, they're going to put up ads on the public transit system that say 'There probably is no God' and now the budget skipped the funding for our scientists. Not to mention... shouldn't the sign say 'There IS no God'? Sorry, but 'probably' only displays how unsure you are.

Maybe people should be putting up ads and writing budgets when they are a little more sure of themselves.

Peter Kells
from Bytown, Canada writes:
Could it be that Genome Canada were not funding the 'right' (no pun intended) kinds of projects and so were at odds with CPC ideology? After all who needs science if we have 'intelligent design'?

The other thing about those darn scientists is that they are too often more interested in seeking truth rather than regurgitating the daily CPC talking points.

Stan L
from Canada writes:
Dissapointing to say the least particularily in light of Obama's signal to never again let ideology trump science. To extend that thought he further went on to lift the ban on Stem Stell research which demostrably affected the markets and revived interest almost overnight.....and here we are moving backwards, nice.

That said, what is anybody to do about it? One of Harper's greatest failures is the degree to which he has politicized and polarized poltics in Ottawa. There is not a single move that is made now that isn't over-analysed to death as to the political implications. In fact for most part, decision making in Ottawa is made based on the political points that can be scored rather than the benefit to Canada......to a lesser degree this has always been true, but now moreso than I have ever seen. I can only hope that igantieff chooses to pull this government down sooner rather than later and that we can end this nonsense.

Peter Choate
from Calgary, Canada writes:
What is also crucial is that this will open the door to many of our top researchers being drawn away to foreign universities who have funding. We have seen the devastating effects of brin drain before. It will be sad indeed if we are now seeing the seeds sown for another round of that. The long term implications are huge

Gilles Chaput
from Mississauga, Canada writes:
Does a budget list all organizations that receive Federal dollars? No, only the ones that will get special (extra) funding from this one-time recession-abetting moneys. So they are likely not losing their basic budget, they more likely simply not receiving special (extra) funding. Given we are in a severe recession, the extra spending should be for job creation in the trades, the affected industries such as auto, forestry, agric., and for the vulnerable (poor, seniors, disabled) and not necessarily for the researchers who do not fit in those categories affected by the recession.

scott thomas
from Canada writes:
The budget also cuts back on NSERC and SSHRC grants -- which is as it should be. Why would the conservatives want to fund hard science or social science research owhen it gets in the way of their agenda? Hard science that demonstrates the causes and effects of global warming gets in the way of tar sands exploitation, for example, and social science that provides the basis for human rights challenges gets in the way of taking rights away from gays and lesbians, to give another example. So of course Harper, and his extreme right wing views, Stockwell Day and his extreme religious views, Vic Toews and his extreme social views, John Baird and his extreme closeted views, all would be against objective research into social and scientific knowledge. The majority of the budget has made hypocrits of them all, but it is a relief to see that they've held to their regressive beliefs in the one area that can really damage Canada's future.

Derek live..... from the center of the universe
from Canada writes:
this report is misleading....Statistics Canada reported Thursday that . The federal government is expected to spend about $9.9 billion on science and technology in the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009, a drop about three per cent from the previous year, Statistics Canada reported Thursday. These forecasts, however, don't always hold, as the government can often announce funding plans before or during the announcement of the federal budget, but after Statistics Canada completes its assessment and government agencies provide the agency with their numbers. One example where the forecast underestimates funding — pointed out by a number of research analysts — is that it does not include the $95 million in funds added to Canada’s three university granting councils for direct and indirect costs in the last federal budget, an amount that would have come in after the agencies provided Statistics Canada with their projections. The addition of these funds alone would temper the projected decline to two per cent. Last year the government agency's forecast was similarly conservative in its projection for the fiscal period ending on March 31, 2007, projecting $9.5 billion in spending for that year. The preliminary results for that year, however, suggest the government actually spent about $10.1 billion. this report does not fully represent all funding ..... also The Conservative government pledged a number of science and technology funding programs during the fall election campaign, including an additional $850 million on science and technology investments by 2009-10, a $75-million venture capital fund for late-stage technology companies and the addition of $200 million to the automotive innovation fund and the strategic aerospace and defence initiative. people please be more informed before you go off on ideology rants it embarrasing for you

Stan L
from Canada writes:
S S from Canada writes: This one is for IGGY so you support any thing because you are not ready for an election?

No, he has to support it becuase the fact is that we judge all decsioin making at this point by the political rather than the practical. IF Igantieff had pulled down that budget, the next thing would be the attack ads talking about how he is 'not a leader' and then the ones accusing him of some sort of treason or self-interest for excersizing the oppositions right to actually oppose.

Jason Roy
from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes:
t scot from Canada writes: Peter Wojnar....cut anything or everything in order to fund the sciences. But really Peter, we're talking about 140 million here out of 34 billion. You have to face the facts Peter. Cons are known world wide for their anti-science positions. If you are aware of that and spew this crap anyway then you are merely a shill. like Roy and Byers ------------------------------- That's rich coming from a pathetic sheep like you... According to the article (that thing you likely didn't read or skimmed over at best) this could possibly an oversight.... ...if not, then for the sake of 70M a year put it back. HOWEVER, the article (again that thing you either didn't read or skimmed over at best) also says the following: '...the three agencies had 'identified savings to be made' of $87.2-million over the next three years in overlaps of grants and programs. But they said the details were still being worked out.' ...and again I find it quite rich for LPC sheep such as yourself to lay the blame on this 100% on the government while turning a blind eye to the fact that your beloved party is supporting this - either that or you're too busy bending over and asking for more.

t scot
from Canada writes:
By the way Jason...seeing as how you insist the G and M is a liberal rag that would make you the troll *sshole, so why don't you get lost. I'm sure a lot of people are sick to death of your inane blatherings.

Stan L
from Canada writes:
Peter Choate from Calgary, Canada writes: What is also crucial is that this will open the door to many of our top researchers being drawn away to foreign universities who have funding. We have seen the devastating effects of brin drain before. It will be sad indeed if we are now seeing the seeds sown for another round of that. The long term implications are huge

You are SO right Peter, the fact is that the only thing that slowed the brain drain in the past 3 years was that the US administration was ideologically way worse.....now that Obama has thrown open the doors, I expect the exodus to start up again full throttle.

Wendy Stone
from Canada writes:
This has nothing to do with the money and everything to do with the fact that Harper is an evangelical Christian who, like George W. Bush, opposes things like stem cell research.

Meanwhile, after eight years of Canada having an advantage in this one area of research, Obama has finally restored funding for that type of research in the United States and they are now pushing ahead with those projects.

So it means that Canada will lose its advantage ... and also lose its scientists who will go and work in the States. We will face a brain drain out of the country, further impoverishing our country.

Zoe Morrow
from Canada writes:
Canada is not known for its R&D and now it will sink into even more obscurity. This is pathetic. Canada shouldn't be so mediocre and be lagging behind the US, UK, Germany and so on when it comes to R&D. We have educated people here (apparently Ontario has more university-educated people than any other jurisdiction on earth), but there is a complete lack of respect for R&D here.

Billy Bee
from Harper's religious-right underbelly is showing!, Canada writes:
I see the crackpot CPC NeoCon religious-right ideology is still lurking under that failed attmept to persent themselves as moderates.

Nice work Harper, you're making Canada look backwards.

I wonder when the CPC is ever going to realize the the NeoCon experiement in the US failed and failed miserably (war, debt, unemployment, recession, etc., etc.). Maybe that's why they have a Dem President now. Think about it, crackpots....

Still Learning at 78
from Canada writes:
Did Iggy ask the Block or the NDP if they had any concerns about the budget? If Mr Harper sneaks in a real goodie for Quebec will his chances of a confidence vote be gone out the window without the Block or NDP support. Maybe Mr Iggy you were not so smart after all,the coalition is dead. Holding Harper to account is a pretty hollow threat.

No Hoar Like An Old Hoar
from I placed the money from Mr Schreiber in a safe deposit box, Canada writes:
Spin Assassin from Ville du Quebec, Canada writes: ...How exactly do you suppose 'big research' will stimulate the economy?

==========================

1. In the long term by providing valuable innovations that can be commercialized.

2. In the immediate term by providing high quality jobs employing persons in whom society has invested a lot of education. These jobs pay reasonably well, sustaining individual spending that generates a multiplier effect.

N. Ontarian
from Canada writes:
Just because they weren't specifically mentioned in the budget, does NOT mean they have been 'erased' as the stupid, and likely inaccurate headline suggests. But is anyone surprised, ever, that there are daily misleading headlines in the MSM. As long as the headline might make the Harper conservatives look bad, then the MSM thinks it's okay to put them out there.

Alex Smith
from Guelph, Canada writes:
A year ago the prestigious science journal Nature published an editorial that called into question this Conservative government's commitment to science and research in Canada. 'Science in Retreat' criticised the Harper government for it's, 'manifest disregard for science'. Tuesday's budget has furthered and entrenched this disregard. Multinational, big-science projects are now critically compromised or on their death bed. Canada's researchers want to lead emerging science and technological advances - Canada's current government clearly does not. A reversal of the blatant cold shoulder given to Genome Canada and the genomics community in Canada must be called for.

Vern McPherson
from Canada writes:
I know ......... lets fundraise and get the genome project to research whether or not COns lie because repatative lying and rote lying is genetic in origin.......

We could also study basic stupidity and tunnel vision as functions of certain COnsgenetic markers ...... we could figure a way of genetically engineer the coreCOnsbots into something useful that could tote water in arid locales or dirt from construction sites in little baskets ...... something .......

No Hoar Like An Old Hoar
from I placed the money from Mr Schreiber in a safe deposit box, Canada writes:
Catherine S. from Canada writes: I see the lefty shrills out this morning with their usual predictable rhetoric, name calling, and accusations. I have a suggestion for you lefty shrills: go back and learn how to debate - you are making yourselves look unintelligent.

J Kay
from Canada writes:
N. Ontarian: Perhaps you've never read a budget or the attached ways and means documents - supply bills - that are attached to them, but that is exactly what omission means; no funding.

G L
from Thunder Bay ON., Canada writes:
I trust this glaring oversight will be corrected ASAP! This is a very important agency and it is unbelievable that the government apparently overlooked it, One would hope that this was a honest mistake.and that it will be corrected immediately.

No Hoar Like An Old Hoar
from I placed the money from Mr Schreiber in a safe deposit box, Canada writes:
Scott Oxner from Canada writes: Maybe if they spent this research money on something REAL and IMPORTANT, then they would have continued to recieve money. Instead they like to waste away millions of dollars on a global warming political theory.

No Hoar Like An Old Hoar
from I placed the money from Mr Schreiber in a safe deposit box, Canada writes:
Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: R L from Canada writes: ... Well then, perhaps you and others of like mind should write Igantieff and demand that he either see the approriate funding is added to the budget (if not as the article states it was just an oversight not mentioning Genome Canada in the budget) OR he withdraws the LPC's support on the budget...

...but no - you Liberal hacks will spend the next gawd so long blaming the government ...

==============================

Rather a screwball position to take, Mr Roy.

The government wrote the budget and presumably control its contents.

Oughtn't concerned citizens direct their communications to the Finance Minister and the minister for research?

Allan Beveridge
from Edmonton, Canada writes:
No Hoar Like An Old Hoar, a home grown and vibrant science community also brings in foreign investments, inspires students to excell and beyond creating commercial opportunity it benefits in health care, secondary and spinoff research into supporting innovations for further scientific studies, industries, business, health....

Robert White
from Waterloo, Canada writes:
This story appears to be incorrect.The Industry Minister was on CTV this morning and stated that the funding is in year three of a five year plan and remains unchanged.Although there is no new funding for this group, and some may argue that there should have been, funding has not been taken away.

My Name is Jack and Iggy Can't Be Trusted
from Black Mud Creek, Canada writes:
The word is people on the street like the budget even in Quebec. No science program funding has been cut or eliminated. As for the non believers no churches got funding so who cares.

Fake Name
from Canada writes:
Well, this ought to make the rabid libertarians who hate all government spending on science, and the rabid creationists who wish the genetics field would just go away and stop answering questions, happy at the same time.

For just a few minutes yesterday I thought the conservatives were maybe going to put partisanship aside for a while, but I guess they couldn't help but throw their core constituencies a bone.

Allan Beveridge
from Edmonton, Canada writes:
It is suggested by comments like 'But is anyone surprised, ever, that there are daily misleading headlines in the MSM. As long as the headline might make the Harper conservatives look bad, then the MSM thinks it's okay to put them out there. '

Harper does not need any help to make himself look 'bad', unfortunately for Canada he has that covered fairly well. Of course a look across the aisle isn't all that inspiring either.

J S
from Canada writes:
Science is the enemy of our current Conservative government since it does not conform to their ideals. This is not the first example of the Harper government snubbing science either. In 2009, it's shameful.

Shawn Mckone
from Calgary, Canada writes:
Ideology always wins with the Conservatives. It's interesting just how much Canadians hated George W Bush and yet Harper mimics him on almost every issue. Really... write a list and check off boxes, its scary. Even the positions that involve controversial social issues like gay marriage or abortion, its not that he's in line with most Canadians it is that it is not politically palatable for him to be vocal on it.

People aren't just being dramatic when they compare the two. I live in Calgary and 2/3 of the people here who vote Conservative aren't people who would vote for George Bush. For some reason something disconnects in their brains and they pull the lever anyways. It's really just baffling, especially for the progressive conservatives and libertarians who have very little in common with him.

Gilles Chaput
from Mississauga, Canada writes:
Please read this paragraph from the Globe's article very carefully:'Dr. Godbout said he recently met with Industry Canada staff, who attend their board meetings, and made a pitch to receive $370-million over five years, or about $70-million a year. The request seemed to be warmly received, he said, but during Tuesday's budget lockup, he found no reference to Genome Canada whatsoever.'So, it isn't $140 M after all, but rather we are talking about $ 70 M... And the budget does not say the funding is removed - Dr Godbout states there is ''no reference'' to Genome in the budget...Given there are thousands of NPOs funded by the Federal government in Canada, it is impossible for the budget to mention them all. extra money from the special one-time infrastructure moneys and he may be assuming the regular basic funding is removed because Genome is not mentioned. Thousands of other organizations are not mentioned either - but normal recurring funding is continuing. Has Dr Godbout contacted the government department to enquire about this or is he running to the media without checking the facts?

pik scott
from Canada writes:
And outfits like this are taking hits in every country. Come people lets try something new and start backing this government. The cons and libs are starting to work together again and layton and duceppe are very upset right now, that has to be good news for canada.

Joe Smith
from Toronto, Canada writes:
Canada hits above its weight in academic research, especially in the biomedical field. To say that 'Canada is not known for its R&D', as one poster did above, is patently false. For a country of 32 million people we do very well.

The projects that Genome Canada funds are directly related to our understanding of genetics, human health and disease processes. To say that this work has no impact on Canadians is just ignorant -- similar work done in the 1990s is the foundation for many of the new treatments we have today. It takes time to move from basic discoveries to new treatments -- people who say it should be done faster usually have very little idea of how the research process actually works.

Bob Dylan's Voice
from Canada writes:
Gilles Chaput from Mississauga, Canada writes: Please read this paragraph from the Globe's article very carefully: 'Dr. Godbout said he recently met with Industry Canada staff, who attend their board meetings, and made a pitch to receive $370-million over five years, or about $70-million a year. The request seemed to be warmly received, he said, but during Tuesday's budget lockup, he found no reference to Genome Canada whatsoever.' So, it isn't $140 M after all, but rather we are talking about $ 70 M... And the budget does not say the funding is removed - Dr Godbout states there is ''no reference'' to Genome in the budget... Given there are thousands of NPOs funded by the Federal government in Canada, it is impossible for the budget to mention them all. extra money from the special one-time infrastructure moneys and he may be assuming the regular basic funding is removed because Genome is not mentioned. Thousands of other organizations are not mentioned either - but normal recurring funding is continuing. Has Dr Godbout contacted the government department to enquire about this or is he running to the media without checking the facts? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And if he did go to the media before going to the government he may find that he has caused his program to be cut even if it was in the budget. The government's already taking the publicity hit for this so why follow through even if it was in the program spending. A very immature move by Genome and not very bright for top notch scientists.

Hairy Wrangellian
from Saltspring Island, Canada writes:
Typical Conservative move. They do this at the same time as they budget $300 million for nuclear energy, and shortly after blowing $189 million on sending tanks to Afghanistan that don't work in the summertime.

Green Canada
from Edmonton, Canada writes:
glad to see a bunch of folks just slinging insults. In my opinion R&D is where the future economy must be established. This budget therefore gets an F in my books. For those who claim science can rely on private funding, get your head out of the sand. A lot of research is of a nature where immediate profit is not possible nor is it the aim, nor should it be. It just shows the excessive reliance on resource based industries that the conservative base populates. Make no mistake, science is the realm of people who are typically more liberal in mindset. I will not say the move is intentional but it certainly falls in line with the conservative approach - slash what you don't agree with and prop up resource based/extractive industries and policing.

stupid three
from timbuktu, Canada writes:
this is the reason that the harper gov needs a science advisor...but I guess having an advisor would mean that you put some worth in science and its contribution to society.

this is not the end of the world but any cut in funding will hurt all science in Canada because the other federal funding agencies will have to pick up the slack.

W M
from Canada writes:
I am not a fan of this government (at all), but this is so unbelievably counterproductive that it seems mindboggling that these cuts could have been made on purpose. And yet, it also seems hard to imagine that they were made by accident, given that the cuts are so big and were made across the board. How can hobbling our scientific research capacity possibly help us compete?! Are scientists another group on which Harper and his cronies are seeking revenge?

Peasinour Thyme
from Edmonton, Canada writes:
And thus we remain hewers of wood and drawers of water. Oh, wait! We know forestry is dead, and we've polluted almost all our water, so we can't return to hewing wood and drawing water, anyway.

This government is surprisingly disappointing. The primary investment Canada needs nationally is in R&D. The spinoffs and returns from this type of work more than pays for itself.

They know that. What's wrong with them? This is the most crucial area of investment. How else are we supposed to compete in technology? How else is productivity going to increase? How are we to maintain our standard of living?

Is it too late to bring down this government. C'mon Ignatieff, don't be so useless. We were counting on you!

George Nikitin
from Hamilton, Canada writes:
While the propaganda holiday is over and the Liberals, under Iggy, have returned to their neocon salad tossing/enabling agenda; the propaganda campain itself rolls on. I just heard another fear mongering anti-coalition radio ad. Mean neocons like Stevo sure know how beat a horse, even though it be dead.

Living Fossil
from Edmonton, Canada writes:
Silver Centaur from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'It is probably just an oversight. $140 M is just pocket change. If the governement truly wanted to get rid of Genome Canada, there would have been advance notice and consultation.'

Hans S
from Canada writes:
Not a surprise coming from these dummy ReformCons. But among their ranks are uneducated fools who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and that an evil red guy lives under the ground while angels fly in the sky. Science is hard.

Leigh Fisher
from Montreal, Canada writes:
I hope this is an oversight that they will quickly remedy and make a strong statement of their policy towards research and development in this country. This should be part of what any government should be proud to support. How ludicrous to overlook it. Canadians may feel mixed about support for many kinds of funding, but nobody I can think of considers this kind of funding unuseful or wasteful...just the opposite.

Why didnt the Liberals pick up on this? Where is Genome rep to the govt, they should look at their communications. Sometimes I worry about the people running things in this country.... sigh

Grampa Canuck
from Belleville, ON, Canada writes:
One thing several posters have missed: hockey rinks in dying communities have a lot more visibility amongst the voting public than basic scientific research.

Of course basic scientific research is what leads to the scientific advances that are then turned into useful products. I'm sure there we lots of folks who thought Misters Bardeen, Shockley and Brattain were just indulging in useless research when they, as members of the Bell Labs Solid State Physics Group came up with this interesting current amplification device in 1947. It was first called a transfer resistor, but the name then got shortened to 'transistor'. I guess, from this, we can see how useless basic scientific research is.

Jeff Pritchard
from Canada writes:
I've said it before and I'll say it again - the problems we face as a society require scientific and technological solutions. A government that would reduce crucial funding to these areas is not a government that is looking out for the nation's best interests.

David Lee from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Canada is a great force in the scientific field, and the world recognizes it as such - but it seems that Canadians themselves don't know that at all - in an annual report published by the Stem Cell Network had this fascinating timeline that featured a brief history of stem cells - the first half of these milestones were mostly Canadian discoveries, including the very first paper that described such stem cells by Till and McCulloch in 1963.'

Wow.

Seriously, wow.

Hopefully, as David Lee continues his training and studies, he will learn better how to critically analyze data, and avoid spewing out parochial, partisan propaganda.

In case David Lee somehow failed to notice, that 'Stem Cell Network' group is a Canadian group interested in publicizing Canada's efforts. So no sheets, Sherlock, it's going to emphasize a certain, um, spin.

But if you look at the history of stem cells, they were published on as far back as a hundred years ago (Russian, Maksimov).

As far as 'half' of the major discoveries in stem cells coming from Canada, that is just hyperbolic silliness.

Yes, Canada is strong in the stem cell area, and yes, key researchers such as Till and McCulloch and others also using mice currently in Toronto have made major contributions.

But don't overstate the case. It only makes you sound like any hyper-patriotic folks south of the border whose exaggerations and tone you probably disdain.

Grampa Canuck
from Belleville, ON, Canada writes:
Greg Van Zandt from Canada writes: Looks like they provided the arts funding this time so the Liberal mouthpiece (Globe) will use the anti-science angle.__________________________Yup, Greg, your insight is down right amazing; the fact that the Globe endorsed the Harper Conservatives in the last election not withstanding.

John Sexton
from Toronto, Canada writes:
In the final analysis Tuesday's Federal Budget, brought in by the Conservatives and 'okayed' by the Liberals, is bested suited to meet the urgent needs of (chiefly) senior executives of Canada's financial community- the Banks and the Mortgage Insurance companies- who are trying to cope with a pending stockpile of defaulting mortgages and big-ticket-item loans, and who, in the meantime, were thinking of doing a little home renovating until the global economy gets back on its feet.

Those die-hard supporters of either Liberal or Conservative party who just love to harangue one another ad nauseum on these G&M posts should just kiss and make up now: neither party can claim to stand for any principle other than that of expediency and the so-called (unsexy) 'lust for power' that neuters their ability to address anything close to what might be misconstrued as the public interest or the greater good of Canada.

George Nikitin
from Hamilton, Canada writes:
What Canadians need, without their input of course, is a Lib like Iggy to keep the will of the public from prevailing. That of course is what they call a 'crisis of democracy.' ~38% of people think Stevo is a good 'leader,' and I am thinking that Iggy must be among them. Iggy's enabling somehow guarantees Stevo's Reform-a-tories a neocon stranglehold on our 'democracy.' Either that or Stevo has yet to errode our social safety nets to Iggy's more spartan American tastes. While deeply distateful to many Canadians, atleast Bob Rae is a Canadian who's lived in Canada some tangible percentage of his formative and productive years. I feel this atleast partially legitimizes his aspirations for Candian political leadership and power. At the very least he can credibly pretend to know and care about local and domestic issues, something Iggy cannot do. Iggy's a foreigner, and even if he wasn't he'd still be a foreign agent. It's not like he give a rat's rectum for the people living in his riding. The guy gets his marching orders from some backroom star chamber, most likely populated with powerful and influential foreigners that probably speak and spend 'American.' Honestly, why isn't Iggy back in his own country helping Obama? Our friends and neigbours clearly need his help more than we do, now more than ever.

George Nikitin
from Hamilton, Canada writes:
What Canadians need, without their input of course, is a Lib like Iggy to keep the will of the public from prevailing. That of course is what they call a 'crisis of democracy.' ~38% of people think Stevo is a good 'leader,' and I am thinking that Iggy must be among them. Iggy's enabling somehow guarantees Stevo's Reform-a-tories a neocon stranglehold on our 'democracy.' Either that or Stevo has yet to errode our social safety nets to Iggy's more spartan American tastes. While deeply distateful to many Canadians, atleast Bob Rae is a Canadian who's lived in Canada some tangible percentage of his formative and productive years. I feel this atleast partially legitimizes his aspirations for Candian political leadership and power. At the very least he can credibly pretend to know and care about local and domestic issues, something Iggy cannot do. Iggy's a foreigner, and even if he wasn't he'd still be a foreign agent. It's not like he give a rat's rectum for the people living in his riding. The guy gets his marching orders from some backroom star chamber, most likely populated with powerful and influential foreigners that probably speak and spend 'American.' Honestly, why isn't Iggy back in his own country helping Obama? Our friends and neigbours clearly need his help more than we do, now more than ever.

B-rock W
from Canada writes:
Beer coffee from Switzerland mentions his interest in how research money is recovered and how research can be marketed and monetized.

I can assure you every university or institution has patent offices that review potential research going on at their school. An interesting report by Deloitte and touche LLP, which discusses the Partnership between University of Guelph and OMAFRA (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Finance), has shown that the partnership returned $3 for every $1 invested (direct impacts).

When you include 'spinoff' activities they estimates that for a one year, $54 million investment by OMAFRA, that the economic impact on the province reached 1.15 billion in a single year (2006/2007). Spinoff activities was defined as product innovation and commercialization projects which was estimated to be worth $929 million annually.

If research is not a good investment then I don't know what is?!

The report can be found here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/pdf/OMAFRA-UG%20Impact%20Study%20Dec%2014%202007%20-%20Final.pdf

James Ellis
from Toronto, Canada writes:
It is hard to see how the government could believe that investing in expensive infrastructure for Science, through CFI, without investing in the operating dollars, for projects such as GENOME CANADA, makes good sense in terms of stimulating the economy. On the same day, the Senate Appropriations Committee in the US approved the first phase of the Obama stimulus plan that included a $3.5 bn boost for scientific reseach through NIH. Does this mean our scientific community will move south or have to move to the construction industry...

It's strange at a time when research is just about to pick up in in the states.

Somebody mentioned something about profitability at a time when there is so much fear in the economy. It looked like the conservatives tried to make up for Harper's recent insults to Canadian artists by putting much more in the budget this time. Culture had to defend itself and make an case showing how profitable it was (with every dollar invested returning many more dollars for the greater community, with artists putting in much personal effort often with little personal gain. It can give hope in difficult times, because artists often know how to turn very little into great returns.) Perhaps scientists involved in important research should make a similar economic case (which I'm sure there must be beyond the cost which can't be put on saving lives and improving quality of life.) Science may need speak government's language while stimulus is on everyone's minds. Or get much better at fundraising.

I've very sorry to hear about this (just as sorry as I am about the continued attack on or women's rights for equal work for equal value despite the cost of the wage gap to the economy).

M Whaley
from Lindsay, Canada writes:
The Cons see this as an opportunity. Because Obama will fund science in the US, Harper and the Cons think, 'Well if he's going to fund science like crazy, let everyone go down the US and do it, then we will not have to spend as much'

Mc ott
from Ottawa, Canada writes:
I have no real comment on the funding - it probably was just an oversight, but my god, Globe reporters, get your titles right. Much as he'd like to tout it, Mr Godbout should not ber refered to as Dr. I'm sure he worked hard for the Ph. D, but only a medical doctor should ever be refered to as such. Next time you're on a plane, and have a heart attack, I hope the flight attendants ask that nice 'doctor of antropology' in seat 23C to take care of you.

Sarah Adamowicz
from Guelph, Canada writes:
The decision to cut funding to Genome Canada and other scientific research programs is a devastating one that should be reversed. The impacts of these cuts are far greater than the superficial savings would suggest. In the most obvious case, progress in important research subjects such as genomics, medicine, and environmental health and monitoring will be stifled. Associated with this, the jobs of scientists, technicians, and graduate students will be threatened, impacting universities, industries, and society at large. The health and well-being of Canadians and of Canadian potential will suffer. Furthermore, Canada’s place in the world will be compromised. My colleagues and I find that our international counterparts are in fact eager to participate in big-science initiatives led by Canada, perhaps even more so than in those led by our historically more colonial and powerful allies. Canada could emerge as a new type of power – more peaceful, more collaborative, more respectful and respected – which would benefit the progress of Canadian and global society. Instead, this plan would have Canada dwindle as a global backwater, with our leaps in science, innovation, technology, and training of highly qualified personnel halted. Our emerging potential, in which much as been invested already, will stagnate and decline.

Scott Oxner
from Canada writes:
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto: Thanks for all the insults you typical Toronto socialist. Were you aware that one of the head guys from NASA over the last 50 years, who was James Hansens boss has called out the bluff on global warming yesterday? Check out the nationalpost or any other non bias toronto socialist newspaper. How about being an adult and replying to me in a grown up manner. Bunch of name calling socialists who are pissed that their carbon theories are going down the drain more and more everyday.

Olivia Beck
from Canada writes:
Catherine S. from Canada writes: I see the lefty shrills out this morning with their usual predictable rhetoric, name calling, and accusations. I have a suggestion for you lefty shrills: go back and learn how to debate - you are making yourselves look unintelligent.

Andrew Grant
from Ottawa, Canada writes:
Yesterday, I sent a message to my sister with an statement from David Suzuki welcoming Barak Obama's apparent desire to promote science, a reversale of the Bush administration's 'anti-science' policies. My sister is a scientist at a U.S. university and has been living through the years of government neglect and contempt of science in that country. Now, in spite of economic troubles and university cutbacks, she is optimistic for the future. She left Canada decades ago because research here lagged far behind other countries. Canada had moved forward in the interrim. It is with disappointment that I will have to tell her that we will again be falling behind. Canadian researchers have no reason to share her optimism, unless they can get visas for the U.S. Are we to force our brightest minds away forever?

Mike J
from Ottawa, Canada writes:
I have been awed by President Obama's visionary use of the money he is going to spend to stimulate the American economy. He is taking advantage of a time when money must be spent to make the most of it and position his country for the future. He is going to steer the U.S. to energy self sufficiency using sustainable energy sources such as wind and sun. In Canada we have a stimulus package with no vision, that does little to steer us on a path of sustainability in the future and that ear marks funds to little insignificant projects like renovated subrban kitchens and bathrooms and/or community hockey arenas. Now we find out that funding disppeared for a forward directed research organisation and people wonder if it is an oversite. Come on it is not an oversight it fits the picture too readily. Heavens it doesn't help Alberta, oil, or hockey, or god.

Bill Thompson
from Calgary, Canada writes:
What a crock. The government is not about to cut off funding to this agency or any other. This is typical G & M drivel dredged up to create a problem where none exists. >>>>>>And right on queue, the mindless sheep led by the rubbish king himself old Vern McPherson are right out there braying away about how terrible Harper and the government are cutting off funding when in fact they know this is not true. >>>>>>Liberals and their media sycophants need to get a life and try to elect a real leader with substance and integrity. Your presently appointed and vainglorious offering, while early in his days, is already found to be wanting in many ways. And you folks need to give your personal and visceral hatred of the PM a rest…along with trying to spin the conservatives into some terrible monster with a hidden agenda; all items are long past their best-before dates and no longer credible. What next&8230;troops in the streets; shall we re-visit that fiction too? Twits; one and all.

bob crier
from Toronto, Canada writes:
Can globe and mail please clarify - is the funding cut or is it still there? If it is cut I am definitely leaving Canada and moving to US where they think about the future. If it is cut, 20 years from now we will be talking about Genome Canada the way we talk about Avro Arrow. If it is not cut, and this was just an oversight, then like a bunch of fools we have wasted a lot of time writing these pots. This is at least CDN $100,000 out of productivity for Canada in a day.

Angry West Coast Canuck
from Canada writes:
Bloody. Idiots. The Bush anti-science legacy continues to ferment here in Harper's Canada. Basic research is the key to future growth, yet the neocons would rather spend give money to crooks like the banks and car manufacturers while completely ignoring scientific research. Again.

Peter Cromerovich
from Erehwon, Canada writes:
Part of the problem is that Canada does not have a Conservative government - it has Stephen Harper and the latter supports a narrow minded group of so-called Christian Right Evangelical fundamentalists.

These Old Testament types have great difficulty in thinking in anything except a binary ideological mode. Good versus evil, white versus black, if you are not for us you are against us etc. Everything is framed within their blinkered ideology and so you tend to get religion versus science and nonsense like the world being a few thousand years old.

This particular lack of funding may have been an oversight due to such thinking or they may be just trying to see what they can get away with or it may be hard-core fundamentalism rearing its ugly head once again with religion used as a weapon.

Time will tell, but Canada really does need a new government, one that doesn't run away, one that has some fiscal smarts and one that has passion for Canada rather than for an individual and hateful ideology.

Orest Zarowsky
from Toronto, Canada writes:
What is infrastructure? In order of priority: Drinking Water and Sewage treatment. Including the pipes that distribute the drinking water and carry the sewage away.

Public transit improvements in the areas where population density currently justifies it. With appropriate zoning and regulatory changes to increase density everywhere possible. And links between systems.

Roads, bridges and the rest of the transportation grid.

Improvements to harbours and airports - including their security.

GD Effing 'community arenas' are NOT something that should be on the list. EVER.

But support for scientific research should be. ALWAYS.

All this proves is that every single CPC MP should be drawn and quartered and hung. They are clearly too stupid to live.

rm r
from Canada &, United States writes:
This article states that the only large-scale research organization in Canada is involved in health-care research. Why is that? It would be helpful, but probably impossible, to get an unbiased assesment of the return on investment for government funding of health-care research in Canada. Does the funding create spin-off companies and jobs beyond those directly employed? Does it create goods and services that Canada can sell abroad in return for all those cheap consumer goods we buy from Chindia? Are Canadian health-care inventions even making it into the Canadian health-care system in an amount that measureably helps Canadians? i.e., how exactly is government funding of health-care research helping Canadians and is the help worth the cost? In short, I recognize that Canada is addicted to health care to the point that Canadians effectively consider 'scientific research' to be synonymous with 'health-care research;' however, I am skeptical that health-care research is the best investment for the development of the Canadian economy and ensuring future prosperity. I stongly believe that government investment in scientific research is needed and should be increased, but our leaders also need to ask the question: are there other areas of scientific research that would generate even greater returns for Canada, so that we could cut back our health-care research, purchase our health-care innovations from abroad and still come out ahead?

Martyn Whitt
from Canada writes:
Build a hockey rink and 50% of our citizens will use it, the other 50% won't use but will comprehend whati it is but will chose not to use it.

Build a scientific research lab funded by the government and staffed with bureaucratic civil servants, you'll get 99.99% not having a clue what they're doing or comphrehend what they're on about and 0.01% of our citizens writing papers on studies to be read by the 0.01% of the populations of other countries with abnormally abstract theoretical brains.

Sam Courtney
from Canada writes:
Is anyone surpised by this development? Every Conservative government has cut science funding. Deif,Mulroney, Harper, all have gutted science programs in thier time. Harper and bunch are taking thier cue from the ideology which proved so destructive to the USA. Nixon, Reagan, Bush1 Bush 2 - all cut cutting edge research, with the consequences bearing fruit today. Keep the people stupid, poor and fearful and you can do anything.

Ron McAllister
from Toronto, Canada writes:
We know what Steve's Neo-Cons want; tiny government, support for church and a world where big oil controls it all. This guy supported the 'fire-wall' when reformers were calling for seperation from Canada! That's our boy Steve.

Bobby Dy
from Canada writes:
Martyn Whitt, we are not talking about a scientific research lab that is staffed with bureaucratic civil servants. First, none exist and second, you are talking about the NRC (national research council) system. Here, we are talking about research laboratories that are located primarily on university campuses and who are staffed by graduate students and professors. We are also talking about far more practical things than what you refer to. Things like drugs to treat cardiovascular disease and cancer.

Green Canada
from Edmonton, Canada writes:
Martyn Whitt...what a myopic view of the world...if we used your approach to allocating tax payers' money (i.e. buildling hockey rinks) medicine, engineering, math, ecological, and any number of sciences would remain in the stone ages. R&D is paramount to our quality of life today and into the future (I would argue).

Flander Jones
from Canada writes:
Martyn Whitt from Canada writes: Build a hockey rink and 50% of our citizens will use it, the other 50% won't use but will comprehend whati it is but will chose not to use it.

So what you're saying is we should not use any of the discoveries by science: penicillin, electricity, automobiles...and so on and so on, and just play hockey? On a pond. With old branches and a dead fish.

Bobby Dy
from Canada writes:
Mc ott, a medical degree is an undergraduate degree and your claims about who should or should not be referred to as doctor are backwards. The highest degree awarded by any university is the doctorate. Different systems around the world use different training programs. A Bachelor of Medicine degree, for example, is not uncommon for clinicians. Having a doctorate is the normal requirement for being entitled to the title Dr.

W M
from Canada writes:
Gilles Chaput from Mississauga, Canada writes: 'Given there are thousands of NPOs funded by the Federal government in Canada, it is impossible for the budget to mention them all. extra money from the special one-time infrastructure moneys and he may be assuming the regular basic funding is removed because Genome is not mentioned. Thousands of other organizations are not mentioned either - but normal recurring funding is continuing. Has Dr Godbout contacted the government department to enquire about this or is he running to the media without checking the facts?'========================================= I think you're grasping at straws. 1) I would be very surprised to hear that neither Dr. Godbout nor anyone on his staff understands how to read the budget. 2) I don't think Genome Canada's funding could be considered 'normal recurring' funding. 3) No one from the government appears to be disputing the numbers or saying that Godbout's interpretation might be wrong. Why are you?

Kat Wilson
from Canada writes:
Neocons don't believe in science. They are idiots. Total, full blown idiots. These buffoons deserve to live in caves sans all the gadgetry they use on a daily basis, thanks to SCIENCE. No computers, no phones, no modern medical treatment, no flying on planes around the country, nothin'.

Martyn Whitt
from Canada writes:
OK if I accept the above poster's points about research into drugs which I will I am certain you are correct and I was using an extreme example to illustrate a point-I'd really prefer the government and my tax dollars weren't involved in such endeavours. The fact that they are I have to live with and accept but I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over them not getting more funding. Have you seen the way government bodies work in this country? Staffed by miserable people who care less, it takes 6 weeks to get a simple task done (took them 4 weeks to mail me a new health card wow, the pace and speed), if a unique issue comes up just try and find the right person with authority to help you-you might as well give up. If we have to have some make-work projects, at least they can't mess up flooding a rink in the winter time, as for research for disease or meds, really no thank-you. The civil-service or relying on government funding is what depressives do, what those who don't care about taking some risks do, those who are more concerned with a job they can't get fired from than actually doing something do, those who have not one entrepneurial bone in their body to save their lives do. Hell ya, too right, we have to spend money to keep these folks employed yea give 'em a hose and tell them to flood a rink in November or drive a zamboni. The smart researchers who are young and have been corrupted will bettter off finding jobs elsewhere.

Jason Roy
from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes:
mike sty the Coalition Centrist from Canada writes: Paul Byer from Canada writes: A steady hand on Canada's tiller and no Liberal or Separatist or the other party's hands in her til------------------------------

Has Jim Flaherty repaid the $100,000.00 dollars stolen from hard working Canadian tax payers when he violated Treasury Board rules??

Didn't think so...CONservative hands in Canada's tiller.....

Again P Byer is proven a liar, now go play with your other lying friend Jason.

Fool

-----------------------------------------------

Speaking of fools...

That would be 'hands ON the tiller' and 'hands IN the til' - not 'hands IN the tiller'...

...and on top of that I'll say the same thing I said to t scot - find ONE post (assuming you can count to one) where I've lied....

...but you won't - so in addition to being the stupidest and most useless poster on here - even below McNaulty - that would make you a...

B.C. Expat
from Ottawa-Hull, FCR, Canada writes:
I don't understand. First the Globe readership was angry because Harper didn't want to spend a lot. When he's forced into it, the Globe readershhip criticizes the government for spending. And then two days later, they once again say he hasn't spent enough.

Politics is about managing a society with opposing interests and finite resources. In any budget some are going to get more than others -- what's so complicated about that? If everyone gets more, then no one gets more -- basic economics. The whining seems really hypocritical given the various whines from before.

Hairy Wrangellian
from Saltspring Island, Canada writes:
Andrew Grant from Ottawa, Canada wrote: 'Yesterday, I sent a message to my sister with an statement from David Suzuki welcoming Barak Obama's apparent desire to promote science, a reversale of the Bush administration's 'anti-science' policies. My sister is a scientist at a U.S. university and has been living through the years of government neglect and contempt of science in that country. Now, in spite of economic troubles and university cutbacks, she is optimistic for the future. She left Canada decades ago because research here lagged far behind other countries. Canada had moved forward in the interrim. It is with disappointment that I will have to tell her that we will again be falling behind. Canadian researchers have no reason to share her optimism, unless they can get visas for the U.S. Are we to force our brightest minds away forever?'

Interesting. My situation is virtually identical, except that my sister has only been in the US for one decade, and I sent her a copy of this article.

Carl White
from Canada writes:
And yet nearly $100 million for graduate school scholarships. Just where are these funded students supposed to go after they graduate? Other countries? It makes no sense.

MyCanada MyLove
from Canada writes:
(00)This is a LameDuck that is just putting economy on hold waiting for USA economy to recover. He!! will freeze over first and iron&steel clause will kick in.This is a LameDuck budget that should be euthanized.Spending is not the solution, creation of wealth is.Dumb to waddle after Iceland.Time to SuckItUpButtercups.We need to diversify.We need to repatriate manufacturing.We need to rejuvinate manufacturing.We need to simulate new manufacturing.We need to pursue sustainable economy.

Carl White
from Canada writes:
'Spin Assassin from Ville du Quebec, Canada writes: Oh here we go...Cons are this Cons are that... Way to go Globe. I expected this article. It was probably written ahead of time with instead of Genome Canada.We all knew that not every last person would get a huge windfall nor should they.'

I suppose in your world, the Cons can do no wrong (no matter what they do).

And of course, the Globe and Mail is just an anti-Harper conspiracy.

Your obliviousness is highlighted by the next statement. This isn't about windfalls, it's about the apparent elimination of ongoing funding in mid-stride.

Two billion dollars to repair buildings and build new ones, and less money to put people in them? Anyone should be able to do the math and see this doesn't add up.

Colin Graham
from Haines Junction YT, Canada writes:
Less noticed is that funding to the research granting agencies continues to be reduced by Harper. This has been going since Harper got in. Many, many excellent researchers who deserve to have their research supported are no longer being supported. Some will reduce (or stop completely) their research. They will have fewer (and weaker) students. Fewer lab assistants. This is a disaster in slow motion.

Sassy Lassie
from Canada writes:
Only the leftards could possibly equate 'No new funding' as no funding. Government funding will remain as the status quo, but no additional funds. Honestly is stupidity mandatory to vote for the NDP? People are struggling to put food on their tables and the barking mad bloody socialists are upset because the government isn't giving away more taxdollars to fund science experiments that to date have not accomplished anything useful or inciteful medically.

Flander Jones
from Canada writes:
Sassy Lassie from Canada writes: the government isn't giving away more taxdollars to fund science experiments that to date have not accomplished anything useful or inciteful medically.....Continue with your shrill temper tantrums leftards, whow what a bunch of wack jobs.

So in your expert opinion, because you are obviously an intellectual beyond reproach, how long should we fund R and D before we pull the plug? And what criteria should we use? Take nano-technology for example. Is that worth pursuing?

R. M.
from Regina, Canada writes:
I'm sure it will get straightened out whatever the confusion but I for one am getting really tired of the Canadians (esp. the left) who keep saying Obama is doing this and Obama is doing that...Obama, Obama, Obama.....he is the President of the United States of America folks and to suggest we are somehow equal with the United States in terms of our economy is ludicrous. Obama is also going to greatly increase the troop deployment to Afghanistan...I guess we should do the same because after all Obama is doing it!

G L
from Thunder Bay ON., Canada writes:
WRONG AGAIN!!!! This agency gets 120 MILLON this year.120 MILLION DOLLARS next year till 2013.The Minister said this afternoon in question Period. He also stated that the Government considers this agency a priority and when the contract ends Funding will continue.and reflect that

As the new American presidency is restoring the research communitie's access to funding that was strangled under the Bush/Cheney Luddite policy, Canada, under the born-again evangelical Harper and his creationist cabinet, are moving in the opposite direction, back into the Middle Ages.

But Iggy thinks this budget is not too bad, and he'll 'watch them like hawks', and if they do anything naughty, he'll, he'll, he'll ....tell their mommies.

alex just a canadian
from Canada writes:
Carl White that is exactly what they do. We teach them with our subsidized education and then they leave for greener pastures. Case in point CHIR used to approve 20% of grant applications and renewals today 6%. I have seen in my wifes old lab in TO in the past year 4 Canadians leave for the US and Europe and no new funding, so no new researchers, not to mention the other 6 that returned to their home country. Currently now where my wife works for the University of Montreal, they are not sure if they will get the renewall. So the millions spent will be lost as there will be no money to pay for new post doc students and research.

But I guess people don't care about alzihemers and memory loss. Because it will never happen to me.--RIGHT???---

Just because you don't see it in the headlines doesn't mean it is not producing results. Here's to the next brain drain to hit Canada may everyone be happy that we are ready to lose our most precious resources to other countries that can see the long term benifit of having a smart workforce.

How little we know about our global achievements, just sad. From being importers of Phd researchers we are now net exporters and its all from this budgets short sightedness.

sherry johnson
from Canada writes:
First 500 million in cuts to art agencies, now an attack on scientific research. This isn't surprising. I guess people don't need a culture, education, etc. when more & more all that is becoming important in this country is the dollar. Funny that those worshipping it the most are supposedly Christians. Because there is nothing Christian about worshipping money. I find it sickening and frightening to see how many people there are justifying this move of cutting medical & other scientific research in terms of it not generating a fiscal return. If they want to find real evil in the world, they won't find it in bums on the street, junkies, single mothers, & all our society's problems they are so unwittedly contributing to but pointing their fingers at at the same time. If they want to find the greatest evil in the world they can start by looking in the mirror. These people are a sickening disease & the sooner this parter is gone the better for Canadians as a whole.

Art Harrison
from Canada writes:
I know it shouldn't surprise me but it still does. It seems that anytime anyone questions a right wing government's policy on anything, then the forum trolls come out for an all-out personal attack on anyone who disagrees with them.

Never mind intelligent design, I'd like to see some intelligent debate.

This budget was the Harper government's knee jerk reaction to actually being challenged by an opposition, coalition or otherwise. It's not surprising that in their haste to put something palatable on the table that might save their collective rear-ends they neglected to mention something, even something as important as this.

I suppose the saddest implication in all this is that somehow, in the past, the conservative movement developed an obviously false reputation as being capable of financial management. They are no more capable of handling the challenge of the current economic situation than they were of dealing with parliament in a non-partisan fashion.

When ideology always trumps logic you will never have capable leadership or foresight. When politics always trumps the best interest of the people you will never have responsive and responsible leadership.

If the Harper government is incapable of governing without dictating then they should have been thrown out on their ears. Even that ridiculous coalition would have been better than this gong show.

Flander Jones
from Canada writes:
alex just a canadian from Canada writes: How little we know about our global achievements, just sad. From being importers of Phd researchers we are now net exporters and its all from this budgets short sightedness.

alex, this is not a new problem, it has been going on for decades. It is one of the problems of being a branch-plant economy. IMHO, as research becomes more heavily capital intensive it becomes even more important for federal levels of investment. I believe we ranked 15th. (I could be wrong) in terms of investment per capita in R and D which, given our small population should be a warning bell. Technology is going to become much more important for countries like Canada as the Asian countries continue to industrialize and compete with traditionally Western industries.

Lloyd Hawkeye
from La Ronge, Sask., Canada writes:
what both George Bush and Lyin' Stephen have in common is an anti-science fundamentalist constituency to which they were (are) beholden. Need to appease those foot-soldiers.

J S
from Canada writes:
I can't believe the posts in here today - especially by the Conservative crowd. This us vs. them mentality has to stop! From the tone of the comments, I'd say Canada is currently in the midst of a civil war. It's truly saddening to see since it's not even debate but childish banter.

martha stewart
from Canada writes:
The simplistic attitude on display here is pretty amazing. Seems some are suggesting that anything and everything labeled 'science' must be funded or else the government is anti-science.

Could it get any black-white dumber than that?

Can't fund everything.

If this is all so promising they should be able to get private sector funding.

Or, if they were smart, they would take this funding from the ice floe monitoring industry and the budget for climate change conferences.

All those who think everything should be funded should step forward and create foundations for fund-raising for them.

I can already see the TV ads... using images of cute scientists with flies on their face... for only a few dollars a day you can sponsor your own scientist... you'll get a photo and monthly emails!

Chris Halford
from Ottawa, Canada writes:
I have a hard time believing that this money was omitted on purpose. It sounds like something that was being renewed from year to year. Surely even the CPC wouldn't be stupid enough to axe scientific research? Bad enough cutting money from cultural programs (they benefit the economy too) but to cut science research funding deliberately just seems ridiculous. Maybe, there'll be a correction. If not, I agree with lots of other people here, this is a stupid short-sighted decision. Apart from anything else, why would you want to lose the jobs when you're trying to create jobs? It would make no sense.

Derek live..... from the center of the universe
from Canada writes:
ok sheep !!! instead of reading the headline and assumming the rest of the story perhaps you should become more informed .....according to http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/081120/dq081120c-eng.htm science funding has increased the last five years including the last three under the conservative government , ( that is with complete control in the HOC , so much for the neocon conspiracy theories) ..also it should be remebered that the governemt funds much private research under the SR&ED tax credit http://www.rdpassociates.com/sredtaxcreditscanada.php

Frobisher Grove
from Oskiweewee, Canada writes:
Ha-ha! Science is teh suxor! I will be building a fourth bathroom for my Liquor n' Ammo shop ('Shotz') . I will also construct a luxury pen for my dogs. All thanks to reno tax grants (and Ms. Finley's occasional labourers. Thanx, Di!) Then I will do one victory lap at the new rink. Go, Harper!

bob saunders
from Belleville, ON, Canada writes:
The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) is the Government of Canada's agency responsible for funding health research in Canada. CIHR was created in 2000 under the authority of the CIHR Act and reports to Parliament through the Minister of Health. CIHR's budget for 2008-09 is $928.6 million, of which $132 million is allocated to administering the Networks of Centres of Excellence and Canada Research Chair programs. Almost a Billion for Medical research. Not exactly Chump change.

Research Advocate
from Canada writes:
Bob Saunders from Belleville: I guess the $2 biilion that is being added to the NIH budget this year isn't chump change either? The total budget for NIH is over 30X that of CIHR.

At a time when other jurisdictions are increasing their investments in biomedical and other research, our government is actually cutting it by $150 milllion over three years (CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC combined). This is hardly evidence of support for scientific excellence.

Genome Canada does not have year on year funding. It's omission from consideration in this budget effectively means no new research programs will be funded by this agency at a time when genomics research is moving forward at a phenomenal pace. We will be left in the dust.

Robert Vincent
from Winnipeg, Canada writes:
I don't blame Iggy for wanting to monitor progress. He might want to take a more detailed look and make some comparisons to assure it aligns with the real intent of capital investment projects

c e mnd
from Victoria, Canada writes:
Ohh, Iggy, Iggy. You lost your chance to change and lead the government. Your criticisms of Steve are not believable anymore. I do not want to hear from you again anymore.

Please, let another credible man lead the Liberal Party. Go to the Conservatives, your coalition party. Iggy, you lose your credibility. It is a shame!!! You lost the chance to lead CANADA.

Jack Rip
from Canada writes:
' John Fedup from Canada writes: You have hit the nail on the head. Despite millions of dollars being spent on Genome Canada and other health science groups, the results of this research has produced almost nothing in return for Canada. This is true for other Canadian science advances. Perhaps this Genome money should be used for research on how to utilize scientific advances for commerical gain.'

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. See the biotech numbers below from 2001 (they are much higher now). Check out what Genome Canada does - I hope you never get cancer, because then you may have to rely on the results of some of this funding:

http://www.genomecanada.ca/en/about/news.aspx

Canada's greatest geneticist, Dr Michael Smith, who was awarded a Nobel Prize in Medicine 1993, did more for Canada and humanity in one day than all you whiners will ever in your lifetimes.

CJ Bryson
from Canada writes:
This was obviously done with Harper's knowledge. He is a dinasour as was Bush, in this area and others. I think the public is beginning to view him as such since the November debacle too. He repeatedly acts by instinct, with no strategy to achieve an inculsive and sustainable vision, and it is showing. Obama, not.

guy tozer from Saskatoon, Canada writes: "If it's a non profit, non government funded organization........then why are we the tax payers giving them 140 million a year? Suck it up and earn your money!!"

*Semanic change when you alter a word. The word is "funding", and not "funded" as you wrote down. You're probably not a farmer and never heard of Wheat Genome Sequencing Consortium but you do come across as a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.*

Curious Observer
from Canada writes:
A guy writes a news release because "Genome Canada isn't mentioned" in the budget. (Does he have some axe to grind? Do we know?) The G&M reporter copies it and puts it in the paper without adding any additional information. And everybody gets up in arms because, apparently, they have no way of checking the facts for themselves (not scientifically literate enough to use the internet, maybe?). This is what passes for intelligent comment?

C'mon folks. Do some thinking before you yap. And to clarify another thing, medicine and genetics are not the only things that constitute science.

What are the actual facts of the budget, not those as seen by the author of the news release?

guy tozer from Saskatoon, Canada writes: "If it's a non profit, non government funded organization........then why are we the tax payers giving them 140 million a year? Suck it up and earn your money!!"

*Semantic change when you alter a word. The word is "funding", and not "funded" as you wrote down. You're probably not a farmer and never heard of Wheat Genome Sequencing Consortium but you do come across as a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.*

Angry West Coast Canuck
from Canada writes:
guy tozer: yeah, "earn" the money. Unfortunately, it's rarely the people who do the research who profit from the results. Most researchers aren't capitalists - the two seem to be quite opposite each other. Yet the researchers have earned trillions of dollars for the people who were able to commercialize their findings. Unfortunately, the people who profit are usually so short-sighted and ignorant that they then refuse to provide more funding for the very people who were responsible for their billions. That's capitalists for you. Needs a good socialist research core to survive.

Bobby Dy
from Canada writes:
Curious Observer, the real story is the CIHR and NSERC budgets. They have lagged significantly since the last Martin budget. Things got worse under Harper. There is much confusion here about R and D. Too many people only understand the D part. The R part, however, is key. Without the R, there is no D. That's what the rest of the world gets. The U.S. was the model and established a high standard of living through a proven formula of government investment in R to fuel private D.

Just In
from Canada writes:
I was thinking about the Arrow too. What a sad day.

Conservatives think the only science that is needed is for the energy sector. That's why $1 billion was budgeted to sanitize Alberta dirty tar sands oil - really an expensive PR project, and $351 million given to Atomic Energy of Canada to develop new Candu reactors, quite likely for the purposes of providing cheap energy to extract tar sands oil.

Conservatives are nothing but Alberta Separatists who want to hollow out Canada for the benefit of tar sands interests.

Tim Bryson
from Claresholm, AB., Canada writes:
When it comes to scence, the Conborgs are a bunch of idots, as are the people who would suggest that this reasearch has no benefit and, therefore, unworthy of funding.

My brother is the kind of researcher who does this type of work, quietly, behind the scenes for years. His work allows drug companies to develop medicines that are better targeted to treat various diseases. One of the side benefits of this work is that efforts are being made in the discovery of cures for various viruses. He often jokes that if the cure for AIDS or the common cold is discovered, he will have had a hand in it.

From this research, billions will be made by drug companies. Billions will be saved by governments in reduced health care costs. Economic productivity will increase and lives will be saved.

But no, the Conborgs and their fellow travellers like guy tozer and john fedup tell them to "suck it up and earn the money"...the CPC base; brain dead and proud of it.

Tim Bryson
from Claresholm, AB., Canada writes:
Recall shrub's war on science. Is this anything different? For the first time in my life, I'm going to make a donation to the federal Liberals. These trolls have got to go.

Raymond Wong
from Toronto, writes:
Some people ask for financial gains out of research supported. Not everything in life is about money. Health is the most important thing in life. Money invested in genome research pays in the long run in terms of better understanding of genetic contributions to human diseases. That is the way of the future in personalized medicine. Research takes money, time and effort, but in the long term, it pays back in better treatments for patients. Money spent on making money is all well and good, but without health, money doesn't mean a thing. Cutting funding for research is short-sighted.

If people insist on getting financial gain out of research funding, think of the research jobs lost when research projects are not funded. Cutting funding such that people lose jobs does not help stimulate the economy.

Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the BushAdministration's Misuse of Science

http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/ucsintegrity.pdf

FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION1. There is a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being.

2. There is strong documentation of a wideranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda.

3. There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about "sensitive" topics.

4. There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented.

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive,
threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate
option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments
that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

What does moderation mean?

The Globe and Mail is committed to encouraging intelligent discourse among our readers and to creating a forum
where diverse views and opinions on a wide range of topics can be aired. In our continuing efforts to
facilitate a dynamic online conversation we have created two distinct types of forums.

The first type of conversation is a semi-moderated or reactively moderated conversation. Comments submitted to a
semi-moderated conversation pass through a filter that automatically detects inappropriate language or other issues.
The comment then appears on the website.

The second type of conversation is fully moderated. In a fully moderated conversation, every comment is reviewed
by a Globe and Mail editor before it appears on the site. While we will attempt to publish as many comments as possible
there will be occasions where the volume of comments makes it impossible to publish every appropriate submission.
Only registered users of the site may contribute to an online conversation and in all cases the policy
described in our Editor’s note must be followed.

How do I report a comment?

On semi-moderated conversations we encourage our community of readers to assist with the moderation
by alerting us any time a published comment violates our stated policy. Please do not alert us if you
disagree with a comment, find a spelling error or are bothered by multiple postings. Once you submit
a complaint about a comment, a message will be sent immediately to the editors of the site who will
determine whether the remark belongs on the site.

Share this article

What are tags?

A tag is a keyword or descriptive term supplied by our editorial staff used to associate related articles with one another.
Tags make it easier for you to find other stories that share the same theme or topic with the article you’re currently reading.